Real Time

43 thoughts on “Real Time”

  1. I think real time sounds great in theory, but I'll give you an example of a big impact via Twitter where real time was immaterial.I posted a message about Comcast on Twitter, and got a response 74 minutes later.That turnaround could easily have been achieved by monitoring RSS feeds.Anyhow, it was considered so significant that a company got back to me that fast that it made national news.Examples from Philadelphia and Los Angeles…http://cbs3.com/seenon/3.On.Your.2.798935.htmlhttp://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/…Not bad for a latency of more than an hour.

  2. Please provide data to support that assertion.I don't see how a response that was an hour faster would have garnered a better response for Comcast in this situation.

  3. look at the example above with Weezer or think how marketers can (and do) engage people with real time info when they express interest or concern over a particular keyword.

  4. I read the entire article, and nothing there indicated to me that real time makes a marked difference over a response delayed by an hour.There are theories and opinions, but hard facts are lacking.

  5. I think real time sounds great in theory, but I’ll give you an example of a big impact via Twitter where real time was immaterial.

    I posted a message about Comcast on Twitter, and got a response 74 minutes later.

    That turnaround could easily have been achieved by monitoring RSS feeds.

    Anyhow, it was considered so significant that a company got back to me that fast that it made national news.

    Examples from Philadelphia and Los Angeles…

    http://cbs3.com/seenon/3.On.Your.2.798935.html
    http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/consumer&id=6326500

    Not bad for a latency of more than an hour.

      1. Please provide data to support that assertion.

        I don’t see how a response that was an hour faster would have garnered a better response for Comcast in this situation.

        1. look at the example above with Weezer or think how marketers can (and
          do) engage people with real time info when they express interest or
          concern over a particular keyword.

          1. I read the entire article, and nothing there indicated to me that real time makes a marked difference over a response delayed by an hour.

            There are theories and opinions, but hard facts are lacking.

          2. Yet again, we’ll have to agree to disagree on your conception of “hard
            facts” and “lacking.”

  6. I think real time sounds great in theory, but I’ll give you an example of a big impact via Twitter where real time was immaterial.

    I posted a message about Comcast on Twitter, and got a response 74 minutes later.

    That turnaround could easily have been achieved by monitoring RSS feeds.

    Anyhow, it was considered so significant that a company got back to me that fast that it made national news.

    Examples from Philadelphia and Los Angeles…

    http://cbs3.com/seenon/3.On.Your.2.798935.html
    http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/consumer&id=6326500

    Not bad for a latency of more than an hour.

      1. Please provide data to support that assertion.

        I don’t see how a response that was an hour faster would have garnered a better response for Comcast in this situation.

        1. look at the example above with Weezer or think how marketers can (and
          do) engage people with real time info when they express interest or
          concern over a particular keyword.

          1. I read the entire article, and nothing there indicated to me that real time makes a marked difference over a response delayed by an hour.

            There are theories and opinions, but hard facts are lacking.

  7. I think real time sounds great in theory, but I’ll give you an example of a big impact via Twitter where real time was immaterial.

    I posted a message about Comcast on Twitter, and got a response 74 minutes later.

    That turnaround could easily have been achieved by monitoring RSS feeds.

    Anyhow, it was considered so significant that a company got back to me that fast that it made national news.

    Examples from Philadelphia and Los Angeles…

    http://cbs3.com/seenon/3.On.Your.2.798935.html
    http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/consumer&id=6326500

    Not bad for a latency of more than an hour.

      1. Please provide data to support that assertion.

        I don’t see how a response that was an hour faster would have garnered a better response for Comcast in this situation.

        1. look at the example above with Weezer or think how marketers can (and
          do) engage people with real time info when they express interest or
          concern over a particular keyword.

          1. I read the entire article, and nothing there indicated to me that real time makes a marked difference over a response delayed by an hour.

            There are theories and opinions, but hard facts are lacking.

  8. I think real time sounds great in theory, but I’ll give you an example of a big impact via Twitter where real time was immaterial.

    I posted a message about Comcast on Twitter, and got a response 74 minutes later.

    That turnaround could easily have been achieved by monitoring RSS feeds.

    Anyhow, it was considered so significant that a company got back to me that fast that it made national news.

    Examples from Philadelphia and Los Angeles…

    http://cbs3.com/seenon/3.On.Your.2.798935.html
    http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/consumer&id=6326500

    Not bad for a latency of more than an hour.

      1. Please provide data to support that assertion.

        I don’t see how a response that was an hour faster would have garnered a better response for Comcast in this situation.

        1. look at the example above with Weezer or think how marketers can (and
          do) engage people with real time info when they express interest or
          concern over a particular keyword.

          1. I read the entire article, and nothing there indicated to me that real time makes a marked difference over a response delayed by an hour.

            There are theories and opinions, but hard facts are lacking.

  9. I think real time sounds great in theory, but I'll give you an example of a big impact via Twitter where real time was immaterial.I posted a message about Comcast on Twitter, and got a response 74 minutes later.That turnaround could easily have been achieved by monitoring RSS feeds.Anyhow, it was considered so significant that a company got back to me that fast that it made national news.Examples from Philadelphia and Los Angeles…http://cbs3.com/seenon/3.On.Your.2.798935.htmlhttp://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/…Not bad for a latency of more than an hour.

  10. Please provide data to support that assertion.I don't see how a response that was an hour faster would have garnered a better response for Comcast in this situation.

  11. look at the example above with Weezer or think how marketers can (and do) engage people with real time info when they express interest or concern over a particular keyword.

  12. I read the entire article, and nothing there indicated to me that real time makes a marked difference over a response delayed by an hour.There are theories and opinions, but hard facts are lacking.

Leave a Reply